Yeah...about that $15 minimum wage .....

[Zan15]

LOL what? I worked for Best Buy for 5 years during college and we never hired for holiday help until late October at the earliest.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...-participation

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/04/b...mployment.html

Labor participation going up

Unemployment at the lowest level we (Americans) have seen in many years

Again, created manufacturing jobs.

The net trade deficit is lowering.

It would be common sense that people who have a more advanced skill set would see real changes in wages. If you offer nothing, you should get nothing.

just the fact you even linked CSN should discount anything you have to say, but i will ignore that slip and move on from it. I could easly post a link from there where the labor participation rate was 62.9% under obama and the entire report was how dire that number was and how bad it was for the economy. Just google CSN labor force participation 2016 and have fun reading the OPPOSITE spin on a 62.9% report.


AND now for the response.


1. Labor participation is a joke to even follow. This is driven by the statistical anomaly called baby boomers. This will drop to 60% in the next 10-15 years no matter what the economy is doing.

July 2017 - 62.9%
Jan 2017 - 62.9 %
July 2016 - 62.8%
Jan 2015 62.9
Jan 2014 62.9
Oct 2013 62.8
it has not changed in 5 years. going up? Wait for the flood of baby boomer retiring at a 2.2x vs people entering the workforce. There is no way to fix this unless you allow for mass immigration, which we are doing just the opposite.




2. manufacturing jobs?
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES3000000001 (in thousands)

July 2016 = 12359

July 2017 = 12425

Net gain 66k.

Pre- Resession 14008


Not really booming. almost a statistical dead 0% growth given error rate.


3. Trade deficit is lower because of the dollar and is always fluctuating vs prior months. the trend is marginally lower for the last 5 years because of lower oil prices as well. Nothing that points to a real difference over the last 5 years to crow about.





4. Its not a matter of skill set when it comes to wages. Are you saying 95% of this country have no meaningful skill set that they should except near 0 wage growth over the last 20 years vs the top 5%?






the economy is meandering along at a slow healthy pace. there are problems all around the economy and they are not hard to see. Its sure better then it was in 2008-2013, and its making progress but to say there is no problems is a joke.

[Elegiac]

That's the problem in a nutshell: Instead of looking inwards, at bringing up the parts of the US that don't meet your personal standards, you dismiss a massive territory as being "flyover country" and effectively tell them "you're on your own, die in a gutter somewhere so I won't have to see you." It should be mandatory to drive across the US, it's as outlook-changing as driving across Europe, though for very different reasons.

Being eclectic does not tie urban America together culturally. The only real effect it has is that people sit on their smartphones in public instead of engaging with their immediate surroundings because everything they care about is always happening somewhere else. But the things which make America great (to borrow the phrase) are things which aren't even really on the coasts, at least not the parts you consider "blue America." It's institutions like the Big Ten which pump out a million graduates every year, graduates who are only a step down from the Ivy Leagues themselves. Because the coasts live in a deranged media bubble where the opinion of midwestern universities ranges from "football" to "football," they are blind to the power that those schools possess and use to enrich the country. Likewise, urbanites are blind to the consideration that the people who physically run the day-to-day operations of this country don't come from or act like they do.

Yeah, and therein is what I am talking about vis a vis the demonisation of the coasts. Why the hell should any one of us care about "Middle America" when all you do is flip the middle finger with one hand while demanding our tax money with the other?

I used to be sympathetic to the plight of the American manufacturing sector, and agreed with Tim Ryan that the best course was to renew it for a modern age through the production of green technology and to make this country, rather than China, a leader in the emergent market sectors. But seeing how willing you lot were to throw this country under the bus for the sake of sticking to the establishment, and how easily you were seduced by a liar and a fraud...Why should I care?

There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans who suffered during the recession and rebuilt their livelihoods in the service sector in the cities. That is the market that needs to be nurtured, that is the one -deserving- of being nurtured. Not some chucklefuck who refuses to leave his small town and demands the world stand still so he can relive his glory days. America's future is urban. Or Chinese, the way things seem to be going.

And yeah, you lot don't have a monopoly on pride. There is nothing wrong with being an urbanite, at all.

[PosPosPos]

That's the problem in a nutshell: Instead of looking inwards, at bringing up the parts of the US that don't meet your personal standards, you dismiss a massive territory as being "flyover country" and effectively tell them "you're on your own, die in a gutter somewhere so I won't have to see you." It should be mandatory to drive across the US, it's as outlook-changing as driving across Europe, though for very different reasons.

Being eclectic does not tie urban America together culturally. The only real effect it has is that people sit on their smartphones in public instead of engaging with their immediate surroundings because everything they care about is always happening somewhere else. But the things which make America great (to borrow the phrase) are things which aren't even really on the coasts, at least not the parts you consider "blue America." It's institutions like the Big Ten which pump out a million graduates every year, graduates who are only a step down from the Ivy Leagues themselves. Because the coasts live in a deranged media bubble where the opinion of midwestern universities ranges from "football" to "football," they are blind to the power that those schools possess and use to enrich the country. Likewise, urbanites are blind to the consideration that the people who physically run the day-to-day operations of this country don't come from or act like they do.

I am always impressed by the far right to spin the very act of shunning away from racism, bigotry and a very unhealthy obsession with coal as the act of "betraying the rest of the nation". Mental gymnastics, top class right there.

Also, when I filter "engaging with their immediate surroundings" into a bullshit translator, it comes up with "destroying the environment and eroding basic human ethics and principles". True enough, for the far right, that gross overgeneralization is probably the only semi-believable phrasing their side gets to deceive the rest of the world that they are more than just "I, me, myself" and an abject lack of a moral compass.

Finally as for "deranged media bubble", when you consider all MSM, Fox News is the undisputed champion in the nation with Breitbart sneaking up behind in the recent years. Oh wait, sorry, I forgot the far right has an "Alternative" definition of MSM - they must be "leftist outlets", regardless of the fact they may be far behind in market share compared to their far right conspiracy media counterparts. Hence, according to far righters, there are absolutely no far right MSM sources. /rolleyes

Don't see why you bothered since you seem.to hate our culture, government, and anyokne that disagrees with your leftist authoritarian ideologies.

Please, go back.

Oh noes, it's such a travesty to restrict the far right's freedom to harm others. They should also be able to leech off the taxes of democrats while campaigning against welfare that actually benefits the far right most.

Bad "leftist authoritarian ideologies", how dare they make the world a better place.

[Nadiru]

Yeah, and therein is what I am talking about vis a vis the demonisation of the coasts. Why the hell should any one of us care about "Middle America" when all you do is flip the middle finger with one hand while demanding our tax money with the other?

I used to be sympathetic to the plight of the American manufacturing sector, and agreed with Tim Ryan that the best course was to renew it for a modern age through the production of green technology and to make this country, rather than China, a leader in the emergent market sectors. But seeing how willing you lot were to throw this country under the bus for the sake of sticking to the establishment, and how easily you were seduced by a liar and a fraud...Why should I care?

There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans who suffered during the recession and rebuilt their livelihoods in the service sector in the cities. That is the market that needs to be nurtured, that is the one -deserving- of being nurtured. Not some chucklefuck who refuses to leave his small town and demands the world stand still so he can relive his glory days. America's future is urban. Or Chinese, the way things seem to be going.

And yeah, you lot don't have a monopoly on pride. There is nothing wrong with being an urbanite, at all.

There's nothing wrong with being an urbanite, but you take it to the place where you're othering people for not being urbanites. Ignoring that, you miscast the interior as being nothing but farmland when there are lots of urban centers dotting that landscape. You'd think somebody who was pro-urban renewal would give a shit about basket cases like Detroit, Chicago, and Indianapolis.

[Illana]

Bad "leftist authoritarian ideologies", how dare they make the world a better place.

From what I'm seeing, left ideology is making the world a worse place

[Pickynerd]

Jobs that use hands in non repetitive way, will be in high demand because of automation. Because the next wave of automation, AI and robotics, are not good with their hands. Robots are the worst to handle or fix things if those things are not predetermined
AI will start replacing low skill desk jobs like secretaries and small business accounting, or repetitive desk jobs very soon.
AI companies are approaching daily the big corporations to do demos how their AI can replace their desk workforce, as we speak. Soon they will start approaching smaller business when AI gets cheaper

People been talking like this for at least the last 20 years I've been working. I was UAW working in automotive and the company I worked for relocated to Mexico for cheaper wages, the company lost their shirt by the move and was purchased by a Norwegian company shortly after and moved back to the US making 300M more per year during "hard times". My job was running a semi-automated line, it is still done the same way, but automation is coming!1!!!1

Say companies can replace all their workers with automation and AI. Who will be able to buy their product?

New jobs will be making mud huts, farming and raising livestock.

Money at this point would be useless paper.

[Lochton]

If the workers lost 125 a month compared to the old salary, then it sounds like the employers wanted to reduce them anyway, just using the increase as an excuse.

Sounds about right, really.

[OriginZero]

What people don't realize about increasing minum wage is that one our u.s territories actually suffer from those increases. Puerto Rico debt crisis is in part because of minum wage increase. secondly minum wage was never designed to support families or provide a luxurious lifestyle. It was designed to give basic income to those who lacked skill or couldn't secure a proper job and keep them off the streets. Third point increase of minum wage raises inflation since the company has to increase value in order to compensate for the lost of money that also means that companies that pays minum wage might as well cut the number of staff in order to prevent itself from going out of business. That isn't fair for those want people to have jobs is it?

I don't thnk anyone feels that minimum wage should provide luxrious lfestyle.

The issue isn't luxurious lifestyle, the issue is living at all. What do you purpose these people do? I make far more than the current standard minmum wage and a bit more than the proposed minimum wage. My money is focused on food, car note (fairly cheap note), and living expenses. I don't live a luxurious lifestyle, and things can be pretty rough for me at times. I have a good job that I've been in for almost 9 years with multiple promotions throughout along with a BA (that applies to my current role) and several certifications.

So, if I'm just making it by (you know, one tragedy away from ruin), how do we help the people on minimum wage? Maybe their job wasn't meant to support a family or be a livible wage, but we're past that point in time. Maybe we drop the minimum wage and start with the base requirement of a job to provide a livible wage within living range of the company?

Regardless, we have to do something. Not just for the minimum wage people but extended. Eventually automation is coming for all of us. It'll certainly hit most of them first, but others will be next. People that currently make more than the minimum wage. So, buckle up.

[Deleted]

Not sure why this is news. With the ACA being introduced, companies stopped hiring full-time workers to avoid being forced to pay for healthcare they can't afford. With a forced minimum wage, the only way to deal with it is to have less people working less hours.

My country has a fraction of the income the USA has, and somehow, just somehow... Nearly 90% of the population get by on ONE job, even the ones working 50-75% at times(they live in no state of luxury what so ever, but they can afford to live).

Here you are crazy to work two jobs unless its two 50% or less, there are some with a week job at 50% and a weekend job at 25% for example. But you never work over 100% unless you want to, 100% is 38-48 hours a week depending on profession.

Also since the government covers most healthcare costs, not all of them, but the large bulk of it, companies dont have to care about such trivial nonsense.
We have a 30% tax rate and that covers all of our needs, there are some who claim otherwise, but they are the type that will always complain.

Hell even getting a job at McDonalds here is seen as a good thing due to how profitable it is and the fact that its fairly stimulating. We have jobs that basically pay people for sitting around since they are on call, but 80% of the time nothing happens, so they just wait in case they're needed.

USA has heavily inflated numbers regarding employment, anyone working a job that cannot sustain their living, might as well be unemployed.

[OriginZero]

W-what do you mean that people are not playing along?
THIS IS NOT FAIR
SOCIALISM IS SUPPOSED TO WORK

I don't think you know what Socialism is...cause this ain't it, buddy.

- - - Updated - - -

Minimum wage in Australia as of July is $18.29.

No mass problems there

Americans just don't want to help themselves evidently.

Technically, we don't want to help each other. That's the problem here. People don't want to contribute to the people around them. They won't understand until they need help themselves and it's too late. Maybe they'll be lucky and never run into that situation, or maybe they're super rich because they're so smart and made all the right decisions in life or something, I guess.

But that's the problem with my country. Everyone is so selfish, they can't imagine a few more dollars a month coming out of their check for healthcare or helping the underpriviliaged.

- - - Updated - - -

I wonder how common that is. Personally I've never been at, or heard of a job where the employee walks in and dictates what hours they want to work to the employer. Let alone in 2 jobs simultaneously. It's always seemed to be that the employer dictates what hours the employee works, with no negotiation about it.

This is correct. People can work two jobs, but they have to work them around each other on their own part. The employers aren't going to make it easy.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL at this study's iron-clad methodology.

You know what's sad? It doesn't matter the methodology. As long as the result provides ammo for one side of the debate, it'll be used regardless of any flaws or its truth value. People don't care about the others around them. Everyone likes to act like America is so great, but the people here are terrible and very selfish. It doesn't matter, though, every thing falls eventually. Look at Rome. It's a shame, though. I was really hoping we'd move forward and continue to change the world rather than becoming more and more backwards as years go on. it's almost as if someone intentionally made this happen.

[Citizen T]

Glad you stopped arguing the 30% once it became apparent that no expense has stayed at the same ratio it did in the 30's.



do you think we should also stop regulating things like overtime....child labor....workplace safety....i mean the free market will regulate it and companies i am sure will not take advantage of the workers more then they already do. /sigh

I don't make a comment against murder with my every post. That doesn't mean I suddenly stopped being against murder.

As for the other regulations, it boils down to allowing a contract between two consenting adults.

Overtime. time and a half should not be regulated but could be agreed upon between worker and employer. forced overtime should be regulated as that is not a consenting agreement.
Child labor. children cannot legally consent so that should be regulated.
workplace safety. if some consents to do some type of particularly dangerous work with minimal safety precautions for pay then that is on them. Forcing someone to work in a dangerous situation by either misrepresenting the conditions or changing the conditions after agreement should be regulated.

Minimum wage is the same. Let's say I have some skills in programming and I have someone that runs a small business that wants some kind of custom accounting system. They are not in a huge hurry and I agree to work on this is my spare time over the course of a year. We agree that they would employ me to work a minimum of 10 hours per week at 5$/Hr. They can afford this. I get some pocket money that takes up small pieces of time at my convenience. We both win..... But the government has decided that we can't do this because I'm they know better than we do what I should be paid.

Why are you against the actions of two consenting adults that has no affect on you?

[Zan15]

I don't make a comment against murder with my every post. That doesn't mean I suddenly stopped being against murder.

As for the other regulations, it boils down to allowing a contract between two consenting adults.

Overtime. time and a half should not be regulated but could be agreed upon between worker and employer. forced overtime should be regulated as that is not a consenting agreement.
Child labor. children cannot legally consent so that should be regulated.
workplace safety. if some consents to do some type of particularly dangerous work with minimal safety precautions for pay then that is on them. Forcing someone to work in a dangerous situation by either misrepresenting the conditions or changing the conditions after agreement should be regulated.

Minimum wage is the same. Let's say I have some skills in programming and I have someone that runs a small business that wants some kind of custom accounting system. They are not in a huge hurry and I agree to work on this is my spare time over the course of a year. We agree that they would employ me to work a minimum of 10 hours per week at 5$/Hr. They can afford this. I get some pocket money that takes up small pieces of time at my convenience. We both win..... But the government has decided that we can't do this because I'm they know better than we do what I should be paid.

Why are you against the actions of two consenting adults that has no affect on you?

technically they can act/be hired as an independent contractor and you can pay them less then min wage in almost every state.

You can hire them as a business, give them a contract for X amount of money, then it would be up to you to pay yourself. Since you own the company you would be exempt employee who can be paid a yearly salary, which btw can be less then min wage.

there are a lot of ways to hire people outside of your company for less then min wage, and they are legal


When you gave corporations the right to fire people "at will" and you gave corporations the right to be considered "individuals", the need for the govt to regulate them became even greater.

could you imagine the amount of welfare increase if corporations had "free market" reign.

- - - Updated - - -

My country has a fraction of the income the USA has, and somehow, just somehow... Nearly 90% of the population get by on ONE job, even the ones working 50-75% at times(they live in no state of luxury what so ever, but they can afford to live).

Here you are crazy to work two jobs unless its two 50% or less, there are some with a week job at 50% and a weekend job at 25% for example. But you never work over 100% unless you want to, 100% is 38-48 hours a week depending on profession.

Also since the government covers most healthcare costs, not all of them, but the large bulk of it, companies dont have to care about such trivial nonsense.
We have a 30% tax rate and that covers all of our needs, there are some who claim otherwise, but they are the type that will always complain.

Hell even getting a job at McDonalds here is seen as a good thing due to how profitable it is and the fact that its fairly stimulating. We have jobs that basically pay people for sitting around since they are on call, but 80% of the time nothing happens, so they just wait in case they're needed.

USA has heavily inflated numbers regarding employment, anyone working a job that cannot sustain their living, might as well be unemployed.

its ok they would rather have walmart pay these people 8 bucks an hour and cost taxpayers 5 bucks an hour in welfare benefits instead of the paying a living wage.

but then again there is a whole party that would like to see all welfare disappear too..

[Citizen T]

technically they can act/be hired as an independent contractor and you can pay them less then min wage in almost every state.

You can hire them as a business, give them a contract for X amount of money, then it would be up to you to pay yourself. Since you own the company you would be exempt employee who can be paid a yearly salary, which btw can be less then min wage.

there are a lot of ways to hire people outside of your company for less then min wage, and they are legal


When you gave corporations the right to fire people "at will" and you gave corporations the right to be considered "individuals", the need for the govt to regulate them became even greater.

could you imagine the amount of welfare increase if corporations had "free market" reign.

So you want the government to define how our financial relationships should exist? Should the government be able to dfine how our personal relationships exist? As long as we pay our taxes, why should the government care what type of relationships we have in our our financial lives as long as both parties consent?

These two can have a employer/employee relationship but you can't - you can only have a contractual relationship or a third party business relationship, etc. This sounds a lot like anti-homosexual marriage regulation that included allowing contracutal relations using power of attorney, living wills, etc to civil unions to outright no recognition of same sex unions.

This is not a denigration of same sex marriage but an example of why governments should not interfere between relationship between consenting adults -whether it is personal relationship, financial relationships, or any other type of relationship.

I'm not going to start into different debates concerning at will employment or whether corporations should be considered individuals. But to put my views on them in the broadest terms would be to determine if the Constitution does not cover an idea specifically then the states are free to regulate as they wish with the consent of the citizens.

[Theinquisition]

From what I'm seeing, left ideology is making the world a worse place

Unapproved thought comrade, report to your local leftist re-education center for enlightment

- - - Updated - - -

So you want the government to define how our financial relationships should exist? Should the government be able to dfine how our personal relationships exist? As long as we pay our taxes, why should the government care what type of relationships we have in our our financial lives as long as both parties consent?

These two can have a employer/employee relationship but you can't - you can only have a contractual relationship or a third party business relationship, etc. This sounds a lot like anti-homosexual marriage regulation that included allowing contracutal relations using power of attorney, living wills, etc to civil unions to outright no recognition of same sex unions.

This is not a denigration of same sex marriage but an example of why governments should not interfere between relationship between consenting adults -whether it is personal relationship, financial relationships, or any other type of relationship.

I'm not going to start into different debates concerning at will employment or whether corporations should be considered individuals. But to put my views on them in the broadest terms would be to determine if the Constitution does not cover an idea specifically then the states are free to regulate as they wish with the consent of the citizens.

"But to put my views on them in the broadest terms would be to determine if the Constitution does not cover an idea specifically then the states are free to regulate as they wish with the consent of the citizens."

exactly the way it was designed.

[Zan15]

So you want the government to define how our financial relationships should exist? Should the government be able to dfine how our personal relationships exist? As long as we pay our taxes, why should the government care what type of relationships we have in our our financial lives as long as both parties consent?

These two can have a employer/employee relationship but you can't - you can only have a contractual relationship or a third party business relationship, etc. This sounds a lot like anti-homosexual marriage regulation that included allowing contracutal relations using power of attorney, living wills, etc to civil unions to outright no recognition of same sex unions.

This is not a denigration of same sex marriage but an example of why governments should not interfere between relationship between consenting adults -whether it is personal relationship, financial relationships, or any other type of relationship.

I'm not going to start into different debates concerning at will employment or whether corporations should be considered individuals. But to put my views on them in the broadest terms would be to determine if the Constitution does not cover an idea specifically then the states are free to regulate as they wish with the consent of the citizens.

Govt already does. They make requirements in order for you to qualify for corporation, partnership, LLc, etc etc.
They already limit your ability to get married in how many states, regarding personal relationships.

They are not interfering between two consenting adults they are regulating between worker and business. Big difference.

because of the power corporations are allowed to amass and their influence on the laws and politicians there is no longer a playing level field between "two consenting parties". i do want the govt regulating things for workers rights, pay and benefits.



as far as the constitution goes, its a living document that needs change. that is all i will say about that.

[Citizen T]

Govt already does. They make requirements in order for you to qualify for corporation, partnership, LLc, etc etc.
They already limit your ability to get married in how many states, regarding personal relationships.

They are not interfering between two consenting adults they are regulating between worker and business. Big difference.

because of the power corporations are allowed to amass and their influence on the laws and politicians there is no longer a playing level field between "two consenting parties". i do want the govt regulating things for workers rights, pay and benefits.



as far as the constitution goes, its a living document that needs change. that is all i will say about that.

The federal government really doesn't regulate much in what to do to qualify as a corporation. partnership, LLC, etc. That is all handled at the state level.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "limit your ability to get married in how many states". If you mean polygamy, then I'm pretty sure (about 99%) that there are not federal laws on polygamy. Otherwise marriages are all handled at the state level.

So both of these has pretty much no influence from the federal government.

Workers are consenting adults as are businesses whether it be a sole proprietor, partnership, LLC, or a mega-corporation. If you don't feel these individuals are not capable of handling their own financial decisions then why would you allow a regular Joe to have a loan contract with a bank. Because of the power Banks are allowed are to amass and their influence on laws and politicians there is not longer a a playing level field (sic) between "two consenting parties".

The Constitution is a living things. It was created as such by having a process within itself in order to make changes as times change. If you feel it needs to be changes, then work towards doing so. Don't just ignore it. That likes believing that laws against murder should be removed then just ignoring them expecting not to be jailed for murder.

Murder was used as an extreme. The point is that we are a nation of laws - not a nation of men. If we can ignore any part of the law because we don't agree with it then anyone can ignore any part of the law because they don't agree with it.

[Zan15]

The federal government really doesn't regulate much in what to do to qualify as a corporation. partnership, LLC, etc. That is all handled at the state level.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "limit your ability to get married in how many states". If you mean polygamy, then I'm pretty sure (about 99%) that there are not federal laws on polygamy. Otherwise marriages are all handled at the state level.

So both of these has pretty much no influence from the federal government.

Workers are consenting adults as are businesses whether it be a sole proprietor, partnership, LLC, or a mega-corporation. If you don't feel these individuals are not capable of handling their own financial decisions then why would you allow a regular Joe to have a loan contract with a bank. Because of the power Banks are allowed are to amass and their influence on laws and politicians there is not longer a a playing level field (sic) between "two consenting parties".

The Constitution is a living things. It was created as such by having a process within itself in order to make changes as times change. If you feel it needs to be changes, then work towards doing so. Don't just ignore it. That likes believing that laws against murder should be removed then just ignoring them expecting not to be jailed for murder.

Murder was used as an extreme. The point is that we are a nation of laws - not a nation of men. If we can ignore any part of the law because we don't agree with it then anyone can ignore any part of the law because they don't agree with it.

please a regular joe has a boat load of protections regulated by the fed when it comes to banks, loans and other financial contracts/products. This is not a very good example

Not every change/law/regulation needs to be turned into a constitutional amendment in order for it to be valid, acting like this is the end all be all of this country is a huge mistake.

[Citizen T]

please a regular joe has a boat load of protections regulated by the fed when it comes to banks, loans and other financial contracts/products. This is not a very good example

Not every change/law/regulation needs to be turned into a constitutional amendment in order for it to be valid, acting like this is the end all be all of this country is a huge mistake.

You're right. Not every change/law/regulation needs to a Constitutional amendment. Just the ones that violate the Constitution. The US Constitution enumerates the specific powers of federal government. All other powers are left to the States and the People.

Show me in the Constitution where the federal government is granted the power to regulate wages - minimum or otherwise. Just a piece of history for you. Minimum wages laws were originally passed in 1933 but were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. It was passed again in 1938 and found constitutional by the Court that was beat into submission by FDR after threatening to pack the Supreme Court with additional Justices until he had enough to get his way for his progressive ideology.

[Zan15]

You're right. Not every change/law/regulation needs to a Constitutional amendment. Just the ones that violate the Constitution. The US Constitution enumerates the specific powers of federal government. All other powers are left to the States and the People.

Show me in the Constitution where the federal government is granted the power to regulate wages - minimum or otherwise. Just a piece of history for you. Minimum wages laws were originally passed in 1933 but were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. It was passed again in 1938 and found constitutional by the Court that was beat into submission by FDR after threatening to pack the Supreme Court with additional Justices until he had enough to get his way for his progressive ideology.

interstate commerce clause. its even been tested in court, but you already stated an excuse for that because of the makeup of the court.
and yet no one has ever pushed a challenge that has been successful no matter the make up of the court over the last 70 years.


Sounds like your opinion is not supported by the law and is just that, your opinion.


Nearly 70 years ago, the United States Supreme Court unanimously rejected this same Tenth Amendment argument and upheld the constitutionality of the federal minimum wage. In United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1940), the Supreme Court found that, although the Constitution does not expressly give Congress authority to mandate a federal minimum wage, the Tenth Amendment does not deprive Congress of “authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.” Id. at 124. The Court found that based on Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce, Congress could enact reasonable legislation in furtherance of its policy of excluding from interstate commerce any goods produced under substandard labor conditions. Thus, the Court held that the federal minimum wage is not unconstitutional.

[Citizen T]

interstate commerce clause. its even been tested in court, but you already stated an excuse for that because of the makeup of the court.
and yet no one has ever pushed a challenge that has been successful no matter the make up of the court over the last 70 years.


Sounds like your opinion is not supported by the law and is just that, your opinion.


Nearly 70 years ago, the United States Supreme Court unanimously rejected this same Tenth Amendment argument and upheld the constitutionality of the federal minimum wage. In United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1940), the Supreme Court found that, although the Constitution does not expressly give Congress authority to mandate a federal minimum wage, the Tenth Amendment does not deprive Congress of “authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.” Id. at 124. The Court found that based on Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce, Congress could enact reasonable legislation in furtherance of its policy of excluding from interstate commerce any goods produced under substandard labor conditions. Thus, the Court held that the federal minimum wage is not unconstitutional.

and yet the vast majority of businesses never conduct any business outside of their state and even fewer employers have employees in multiple states.